If you’re skeptical of even the smallest component of the global warming story that’s being pushed by both liberals and the mainstream media then you’re probably somewhat accustomed to being called names, dismissed as paranoid, and worse.
You may have even caught whispers that some people would like to take legal action against “Climate Change Deniers.” Even celebrities like Bill Nye (the Science Guy) have been quoted as saying those who do not buy into the official climate change narrative should face legal repercussions.
Unless you’ve taken a special interest in the subject, the only thing the liberal media will let us know about global warming is that 97 percent of the scientists agree that global temperature change is happening and that human activity is responsible.
Well, that is a convincing argument—if maddeningly simplistic. If you accept the premise that 97 percent of climate scientists accept that the average global temperature has gone up and that it’s our fault, then you’re convinced.
But suppose it came to your attention that much of the data in the report that makes this consensus claim were falsified. Suppose you were to learn that the climate has been warming and cooling naturally, based on solar activity, long before humans ever laid hands on stone tools.
Imagine how your opinion of the theory of climate change might change if you were to learn that satellite data over the past 20 years show conclusively that the atmosphere has undergone no significant warming.
Finally, suppose it came to your attention that in the 1970s, liberal democrats were pushing an agenda based on a theory which they say predicted cataclysmic climate change and that it was called Global Cooling.
That’s right. Forty years ago, we were being told that human-created greenhouse gasses were blocking out precious sunlight and that it was going to cause a major global disaster unless the government was given massive regulatory control over all major industries.
If you have heard any one of the above arguments of the official climate change narrative you may have, quite reasonably, begun to doubt at least the motivations of those with a vested interest in the theory. But, and not for the first time in history, those who do not submit to the official mainstream belief that humans are heating up the world to a dangerous- humanity threatening degree- you may be in danger of running afoul of the law.
Earlier this year, Loretta Lynch, the US Attorney General for the Obama Administration, admitted to congress that attorneys working beneath her in the Justice Department were looking for a legal avenue to punish those who are not convinced that climate change is happening the way we are being told that it is.
They may not be ready to come after the average private citizen ‘denier,’ but their aim is placed squarely on scientists, academics, and politicians who are not convinced of the official theory.
Last week, a handful of Republican Senators sent Lynch a letter which contained a stern reminder that in the United States of America, we do not punish people for thought crime when their convictions run contrary to an official narrative.
They told her, we do not have thought police in this country, and the Department of Justice has no power to punish entire industries because some people in those industries do not agree with the theory of climate change.
The letter read, in part:
“We write to demand the Department of Justice cease its ongoing use of the government’s resources to stifle debate on one of the most controversial issues of our time, climate change. Initiating criminal prosecution for the opinions of a private entity on climate change is a conspicuous violation of the Constitution and an abuse of power that rises to the level of gross misconduct.”
The letter also makes the point that Attorney Generals from the democrat party have been issuing subpoenas to private individuals, companies, and researchers demanding they turn over any climate change related documents.
The letter went on:
“These actions are a disturbing confirmation that officials are threatening to use the power of law enforcement to silence the opposition in the debate on climate change.”
The Senators asked the Department to stop all inquiries and investigations into climate changes “deniers” within 14 days.
Those who are old enough to remember the global cooling controversy of the 1970s may also remember that legal action was also looming over the heads of those who dared to doubt the official scientific consensus.
One wonders what 97 percent of historians would have to say about global warming if they were asked about the global cooling hysteria of forty years ago.
